June 13, 2010

[Ron] Johnson associated himself with the movement, and erroneous media reports portrayed him as an Oshkosh tea party founder, creating the false impression he had received a tea party endorsement.

Johnson has fueled the confusion at times, talking about "taking the tea party to Washington" while downplaying his association at other times. The situation created a mini-backlash among tea party folks who knew little or nothing of Johnson, an Oshkosh businessman who entered the Republican primary race in early May.

Now Johnson has told tea-party leaders he will be glad to accept their invitations to attend sessions in which group members quiz candidates on their views....

The Democrat seeking re-election in the Senate race, Russ Feingold, has cast votes against bank bailouts and the Patriot Act that match up with tea party views, his campaign says.

"We're going to fight for every voter in the state," said John Kraus, Feingold's senior campaign strategist. "We have a good record on many of the issues these folks care about."

I like seeing the Democratic Party candidate fight for the Tea Partiers. Republican candidates shouldn't be able to automatically appropriate the energy of the Tea Party movement.

There is something going on with Feingold - though he's solidly progressive, he's had the respect of a lot of conservatives (even members of my own family) who continue to vote for him. It'll be interesting how Johnson responds.

They certainly don't act like conservatives. Is playing dress-up games, throwing tantrums, and being completely unable to make an argument conservative?

Is standing on street corners waving loopy signs, degrading the level of debate in the U.S., and all the rest conservative?

Following the playbook of a far-leftie (Alinsky) just isn't that conservative.

And, almost everyone believes in limited gov't and the Constitution. A bit more thinking is required.

For the issues that the 'partiers have that you won't hear about from either their supporters or most of their detractors, see my extensive tea parties coverage.

----------P.S. Past comments at this site have unleashed a volley of vile adhominems and libelous comments. Ann Althouse promoted the 'partiers, causing some of them to visit this site and show the true nature of their movement. They can't present a logical argument but instead have to lie and smear from behind (temporary) anonymity. The partiers have a problem with the truth and have clear mental and emotional issues, and some or many replies to this comment will show you exactly what I mean by that. Don't believe the lies that tea partiers spread; instead, take a look at some of the thousands of entries I've posted since 2002. A good place to start is my topics page. For instance, here's my extensive coverage of the NCLR, and here's a list of my posts about George Soros.

There was a great chorous song from 1776 - the musical...These cool cool cool considerate men...here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JDNTS2wHHo. (it is from the movie)

I got to play in the pit orchestra, evenaully conduct it and on national tour I got to be a member of the congress... greatest thrill of my life...and I would give my eye teeth to have been there...just for a minute.

Tim Dake, a key figure in the movement, says no party controls the movement. Republicans "ask us, 'What do you guys really want?' I tell them to read the signs - constitutionality and fiscal responsibility."

It's so simple, and yet so dark and mysterious to career politicians who are primarily interested in their own careers.

Tea partiers, in the main, cannot be bullshat. That is what careerists cannot fathom.

The Tea Party has no position on the Patriot Act to my knowledge. That would certainly be a departure from their focus and reason for being. There are a lot of libertarians in the movement but fiscal issues are what brings the conservatives and libertarians together to form the Tea Party.

Right now the Tea Party is the only movement with a rational and consistent philosophy. That it also happens to be the one shared by the Founders and every other generation of Americans before the current one is of course not surprising.

It would indeed be a good thing if we had two parties that both ran candidates who supported limited government, civil debate, and civic virtue. If both parties support partial violations of the government limitations in the Constitution, and telling what ever lies are necessary to get elected. In that case, the one that might be a liar has to be supported compared to the one who is a proven liar. Throw the rascals out, until you find someone who isn't a rascal.

Agreed on how nice it would be if Democrats were just as willing to DO fiscally conservative. I disagree that Feingold will do anything but SAY fiscally conservative things. Can WI voters tell the difference?

The tea partiers would probably support a latter-day Eugene Debs -- an anti-war, anti-Wilsonian Socialist who didn't see the state as a proper engine of social policy -- if such a person appeared on the political scene today.

(BTW, my maternal grandfather organized the Burnett County Highway Department as the first local of AFSCME in the state of Wisconin.)

Lone Wacko Party members know that there is only one topic, so any opinions related to any other topics are de facto lies. You can't have an opinion about smaller government, because only illegal immigration actually exists.

Kathy: Try facing downriver on the Mississippi River and tell me is WI on your left side or right side? In my world, WI is on my left side as I face downriver. That confirms my opinion about much of WI politically, but not exclusively!

Cheers!

Ps: In Paris, the Left Bank is on the South side of the Seine, or on a person's left side as facing downstream.

Maybe the trend (hockey stick) towards fiscal conservatism by the Tea Party is really the solution to both sides of the equation; if the money to the federal government is limited, there will be no funds available for the liberal social agenda. Removing the oxygen dampens a fire as well as flushing with water and usually results in less in the way of unexpected consequences.

Stop listening to what politicians say. If they voted mostly progressive before, they aren't changing this year. Their power base, income sources and personal philosophy are not gonna change all of a sudden.

Choose based on record, reliability and ethics, period. Even those who never held office before have a record of who they supported and what they supported.

This is why nobody should claim Obama fooled them - he lied to you. The Democrats are going to lie to you.

You don't really expect them to continue to stand in defiance of Tea Party themes after it has become clear that's the most popular position? RINOs will do the same thing. They are all in the business of getting elected. Nobody sells their crappy product by telling you it's crappy. They tell you it's the best damn thing ever invented and it's great for the environment too. Now why would someone lie about such a thing. This voting thing is not hard if you truly follow cruel neutrality.

"The Tea Party is divide and cannot stand" is the new test meme. If the TP doesn't wake up, the Ron and Rand show will indeed become their loudest voice and smash their chance for a united effort at voting out the Marxism Lite Party now holding power. Feingold is only seen as a rebel because he is actually to the left of the Democrats in the Senate.

P.S. Past comments at this site have unleashed a volley of vile adhominems and libelous comments.

What do i have to say that gets me on the "libelous" list, Lonewacko?

That you are sad and pathetic? That you hve to troll other sites for hits to your lonely outpost? that at Reason Magagzine you got run off and that apparently everywhere you go you are a target for laughter and derision? That you are truly CLUELESS, in that when it's obvious NO ONE agrees with you, rather than questioning your stand, you question EVERYONE else....

Ann's cruel neutrality amounted to projecting forward the worst possible for one candidate and the most rosy for the other by ignoring the second's record entirely. Then she threw in the idea that if he's a disaster we will know who's ass to kick.

I agree with the second part, but now know the disaster is too large and the ass kicking is small solace. November may make her call a worthwhile gamble, but a disaster is the price.

It was not neutrality. It was her creamy hippie love chick center underestimating the damage always done by the left's policies. This is the primary failing of the boomer legacy.

Funny to be a Tea Partyist in Oshkosh -- the big free market employer (B'Gosh) pulled out, leaving the government contractor (military, airport, and fire fighting vehicles) to provide salaries to locals that they can spend locally.

Having their jobs move where labor is considerably cheaper? Are Tea Partyists anti-capitalism?

Maybe Oshkosh Tea Partyists should learn to live on less. Top Ramen three times a day, no more supper clubs, ride your bike to work instead of driving -- the possibilities for savings are endless. Then just watch the jobs come back.

Another reason for voter-imposed term limits, to vote out of office excess-termed, privileged-assuming elected officials who need to experience private sector work and the effects of the legislation that they have imposed on society.

One of the passengers, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, walked to the back of the plane. 5 minutes later the pilot came on the loud speaker and said, "folks we've been given the go ahead to take off." As Leahy walked backed to his seat someone said "thanks Senator!" to which he replied "the pilot said he'd do his best."

Elected to the US Senate in 1993, Feingold falls into the category of the excessive-termed official.

IF the Tea Party is hypocritical, doesn't this also highlight the pathetic weakness of the Progressive Movment and it's claims?

Just ask'n? Wasn't the Stimulus and Healthcare Reform all about a laser-like focus on Jobs, Jobs, JOBS? Healthcare Reform is going to SAVE money, bend the cost curve, make US products MORE competitive and the Stimulus was going to hold unemployment BELOW 8%!

I'm also glad to see it. The country loses badly when political parties think they can take voters for granted.

Far too many of our politicians take their perks for granted and have much too great a sense of entitlement. They should assume they have to work to gain our trust and votes, not assume that they deserve it 'just because'.

Oshkosh B'Gosh was sold to someone else, IIRC. Where the clothes are being made now, I don't know. Seems to me that they sold the company long before there was a Tea Party. I do know that you can't find their bib overalls anymore, and if they were making working clothes, well, let's face it, blue color jobs are leaving even as we speak.

I used to buy their bib overalls. I don't think that they make them anymore. Now I buy Dickies, and they are made in Mexico. When I buy overalls, I buy them at the Fleet Farm and the brand that they carry are called Field N Forest and they are made in Madagascar. We don't seem to make anything anymore. Too bad, that.

The Tea Party "movement" is a creation of Republican lobbyists. They TP money flows to them. They know the Republican Part brand is severely damaged so they have worked on various "rebranding" efforts. This is one.

They are government hating, which suits the corporate lobbyists running their movement just fine. Limit government but give corporations more and more power and more and more tax breaks.

You just keep thinking that right into the legislative minority. My parents are heavily involved in their local TP group and know all of the organizers quite well. Not a one of them has ever had any contact with anyone in the RNC. And, by the by, I know your viewpoint is skewed and unwilling accept open debate on the issue, but nobody that I know that’s been to a TP rally hates the government. They are highly cynical, which isn’t the same thing at all. What they do hate is the way increasingly precious tax dollars are wasted over and over and over again.

* Do you support higher wages for working people (-- and I don't mean bankers or investors)?

Loaded question and you know it. No, I don't support $35 an hour for a guy on an assembly line only trained to do a couple of specific things on that line. I don't support $10 an hour for baggers at a grocery store either. Both are "working people" and both are being paid far above what they should be. I believe you've said in the past that you support the "living wage" ideology. Bupkis. You shouldn't be able to shelter and feed a family of four flipping burgers at McDonalds.

* Do you support higher wages for working people (-- and I don't mean bankers or investors)?

Of course I do, but HOW we do it matters. So in your world, AL, is merely MANDATING a “Living Wage” sufficient? You make money by being productive, not by raising wages and costs.

* Do you support lower taxes for the wealthy, including fund managers who pay about half, percentagewise, what normal working folk do?How many homeless people have given you a job, recently, AL?Further, the substance of your claim is false, as the “wealthy” pay far more than their “fair share” of taxes…I believe the top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of all income taxes.

As to the Tea Party and GOP lobbyists, would you care to provide any facts? I know facts and logic are merely the constructs of the Phallicentric, Ratiocinating Gaia-Dominating Dead European Male, but humour me…..

I also find it humourous that it’s Bush’s fault about Deep-water drilling, when the Left never wants us to ask, “Why deep water drilling?” Because people like AL won’t allow any shallow water drilling or development of ANWR or tar sands…..

But what about the working people? What, beyond failed trickle down BS, does the Tea Party offer them?

I guess the 1980’s and 1990’s never happened AL? Lucky we have a Progressive in office now…with the Stimulus the “working people” have a real fair shake…if you find making $240 on unemployment a fair shake.

* Do you support higher wages for working people (-- and I don't mean bankers or investors)?

I support the free market place of wages with a decent minimum wage. People should get paid what the employer will pay based on skill, geographic locality, importance of the employee to the business and the economics of the business.

* Do you support lower taxes for the wealthy, including fund managers who pay about half, percentagewise, what normal working folk do?

Instead of punishing people for creating wealth or for having a good income,I support a flat tax where EVERYONE pays some taxes and EVERYONE pays the same percentage.

Quit having 40% + of the country freeloading and leeching off of the work and industry of the rest of us.

What do they offer working people (besides a poke in the eye with a sharp stick)

I guess it depends. As my previous link showed, 47% of working Americans pay zero income tax so I guess for those who don't actually pay income tax, runaway government debt (the Tea Party platform) probably doesn't bother them. Can't worry about something you will never be called upon to pay for right?

You mean, what do they offer themselves? Freedom from people like you draining them of their hard earned money and opportunity. They don't want offered anything. They aren't offering their votes for sale, which is a real problem for Democrats.

Answering a question with a question is evasive. The thread is about the Tea Party. What do they offer working people (besides a poke in the eye with a sharp stick).

No it’s not, you asked an ambiguous question. I answered that IF you want to make more money be more productive, and that if your “answer” was some form of “living wage” your idea was wrong.

Further, the substance of your claim is false, as the “wealthy” pay far more than their “fair share” of taxes…I believe the top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of all income taxes.

Uh, no, it isn't. Congress is working on plugging a loophole right now where certain Wall St types are taxed at a rate less than half what other Americans are taxed at.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own set of facts. The top wage earners pay an overwhelming proportion of the income tax. As to Wall Street types:1) I assume you mean their return on “investment income”….because I’m talking about INCOME taxes. So now you wish to tax their investments? Good plan, take that investment return. So instead of investing, they sit on the money….THAT”LL PRODUCE JOBS. You ARE truly clueless as to what produces jobs, aren’t you?2) I must laugh as these “wall Street Fat Cats” almost all overwhelming supported OBAMA. So, now you want to eat your own, do you AL? I wonder how they feel about their votes and contributions, now…it is to laugh.

You can cut all the executive pay to minimum wage and it would change nothing, except that the person flipping your burger would be your boss. Good luck with that. The amount of money paid to all the executives in the country is spent by this government in minutes. Wise up and stop sounding like a loser.

The original minimum wage was designed to allow a working girl to pay her room and board, medical and dental expenses, buy a reasonable amount of clothing, including a winter coat every other year, and still have some money left over for entertainment.

The question: Do you believe that people who work diligently 40 hours a week should earn enough to cover such modest needs?

The question: Do you believe that people who work diligently 40 hours a week should earn enough to cover such modest needs?

I'll do the unthinkable and answer a question with a question...do you think someone working 40 hours a week, regardless of what that 40 hours entails, should be able to buy a decent house and support a family of four?

I started in the work force in 1965 making $1.42 an hour. Minimum wage at the time was $1.25. Trust me, a working girl couldn't pay her room and board, medical and dental expenses, buy a reasonable amount of clothing, including a winter coat every other year, and still have some money left over for entertainment on those wages.

The original minimum wage was designed to allow a working girl to pay her room and board, medical and dental expenses, buy a reasonable amount of clothing, including a winter coat every other year, and still have some money left over for entertainment.

The original minimum wage was designed to allow a working girl to pay her room and board, medical and dental expenses, buy a reasonable amount of clothing, including a winter coat every other year, and still have some money left over for entertainment.

The question: Do you believe that people who work diligently 40 hours a week should earn enough to cover such modest needs?You are So right, FLS….the current plan is to pay people NOTHING so they starve to death…so they can buy NOTHING….

You can’t be this economically dense can you? Why do you think teen unemployment is at record levels, and MINORITY teen unemployment at about ~40%? Because they are the LEAST Skilled Workers and if the minimum wage is set at a level where hiring such an employee costs an employer money, they WILL NOT HIRE THEM. Minimum wage laws are one way of unions taking care of their better paid and more skilled members, IF the floor sweeper gets $715 an hour then the CAD-CAM Machinist is gonna make a whole lot more.

"The question: Do you believe that people who work diligently 40 hours a week should earn enough to cover such modest needs?"

Do you think students or other young people starting out should be able to get jobs? Or would you prefer to feel all compassionate while they earn zero and get zero experience under your wing, thus setting them up for permanent poverty.

You don't care about them - you care about how good you feel about yourself. The disservice you do them will always be someone else's fault. Your ideology has produced the unemployable of today and you still can't reexamine your ideas. Shame on you. You are a repressor of the highest order.

The original minimum wage was designed to allow a working girl to pay her room and board, medical and dental expenses, buy a reasonable amount of clothing, including a winter coat every other year, and still have some money left over for entertainment.

bwahahah.....oh my bleeding heart strings. The poor working girl. Shouldn't you make her a homeless single mother too?

Ok. The minimum wage laws were first applied to prevent women and children from being abused in sweat shops. Men weren't covered.

It was to be the lowest wage that could be paid....NOT a "living" wage (whatever in the hell that is) to allow the burger flipper to be on a parity with skilled labor. Pretty sure it didn't have to do with buying coats or underwear.

MINIMUM. Nothing wrong with a base rate to prevent businesses from abusing employees.

However, when goverment raised the minimum rate to unsustainable levels, the minimum wage earners (unskilled, young, part time, students) were aced out of jobs as businesses make do with less staff and hire less.

A thought just occurred to me. I'd be willing to bet, that if you went to Madagascar where my coveralls are being made, that the ratio of executive pay to worker pay is more that what exists in this country. So I don't think that is the problem.

Very serious. The minimum wage movement was a product of Christianity -- Christians in the early part of the 20th Century feared that if working girls could not live decently on their salaries, they would have to sell their bodies, jeopardizing their immortal souls and their chances of becoming good Christian wives and mothers.

"Christians in the early part of the 20th Century feared that if working girls could not live decently on their salaries, they would have to sell their bodies, jeopardizing their immortal souls and their chances of becoming good Christian wives and mothers."

Well, I guess it backfired. That's a primary characteristic of most regulation.

"Pogo -- assume you had an unlimited supply of young black men who would cost you nothing to employ. How would you employ them?"

This is a question liberals in government ask themselves every day. So far they have come up with welfare and crime. I'd prefer they get a minimum wage job where they would learn to work and support themselves, rather than what they are learning now.

Here is that Tea Party darling Rand Paul saying he could give a shit if Kentucky's mountains are leveled and their "hollers" filled for coal, coal, coal:

"I think whoever owns the property can do with the property as they wish, and if the coal company buys it from a private property owner and they want to do it, fine. The other thing I think is that I think coal gets a bad name, because I think a lot of the land apparently is quite desirable once it’s been flattened out. As I came over here from Harlan, you’ve got quite a few hills. I don’t think anybody’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there. "

And the downstream neighbors dealing with all that pollution and runoff? Fuck `em! Pollution is a right!

The more the American people get to know the bizarre ideologies lurking behind Tea Party, they less they support the TPers.

Hye AL, did you know that the people of Apalachia kllive in the MOUNTAINS, with very little flat land...and that after mining the land is often times flattish? And that land owners do, in fact, ask for a waiver to the Approximate Original Contours requirement for mine reclamation? And that Pikeville's, quite nice, public park and recreation area is built on just such an unreclaimed piece of surface mine?

Or that pollution downstream has NOTHING to do with mountain top removal, and that even under PRE-20thc. law downstream land holders had recourse to polution remediation?

Of course not...because that would require you to know a little bit beyond talking points.

The more the American people get to know the bizarre ideologies lurking behind Tea Party, they less they support the TPers.

Cite polls showing that this is even remotely true and, just for fun, please explain how your point of view is somehow devoid of bizarre ideology. I believe your side is the one that came up with political correctness.

"West Virginians who live near streams polluted by coal mining are more likely to die of cancer, according to a first-of-its kind study published by researchers at West Virginia University and Virginia Tech.

The study provides the first peer-reviewed look at the relationship between the biological health of Appalachian streams and public health of coalfield residents."

Hey, you missed a talking point!

Some coal industry officials have been especially critical of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to tighten water quality guidelines for mining, saying it amounts to putting the health of mayflies ahead of jobs.

Yeah, coal has been so wonderful for coal workers. Why look at all the prosperity in Appalachia!

While I agree wholeheartedly that Republicans shouldn't assume the tea party mantle, I also think voters should be very, very, very, very hesitant to think there is any such thing as a conservative Democrat who will vote accordingly.

You're acting like a child so I'll try to be as simplistic as possible. In direct challenge to your statement The more the American people get to know the bizarre ideologies lurking behind Tea Party, they less they support the TPers I'm asking you to show evidence that the TP movement is loosing support.

AC245, I copy and paste text from other places to back up what I'm saying. Then, I provide links, again, to back up what I'm saying. To back up my own arguments.

Yes, AlphaLiberal, we're all well aware that your sole contribution to this blog is to cut and paste various JournoList droppings into the comment threads here.

And that link you pass along is boring as hell. All sides do it! It's called GETTING PEOPLE INVOLVED.

AlphaLiberal, canned talking points are indeed "boring as hell", which is why your comment sludge is so tedious. But all sides do not do it, and while it does "get[] people involved", the only thing it involves them in is "mindless repetition of democratic talking points."

"It looks like Eric Holder said that white people in America are cowards when it comes to race. [LIE, see quote below] And I don't know what the basis of that is, but I'm not a coward when it comes to that, and I'm happy to talk about these things and I think we should. But the president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race — on the side that favors the black person."

Alpha...I agree with your facts at 2:45, except I cannot understand the point in calling the Oath Keepers "un-American", unless stopping that movement is important to Obama's plans to impose military martial law at some point. I remember that branding them as terrorists was Obama's first act over at Homeland Security.